[Data-modeling] Professions and fields

[Shawn Simister]

This is a much needed improvement to the data commons and I believe that 
you've taken the right approach to modeling it. The type and property 
names seem clear and the phylogeny patterns mirrors other commons 
schema. Now we just need an easy way to get all that data into the new 
schema.

+1 from me.

Shawn

Jeff Fry wrote:
> Until recently, many topics were cotyped as both a profession and an 
> industry. Folks have been working to split apart professions (e.g. 
> Engineer) from fields (e.g. Engineering). This is a good thing, but as 
> it stands we've got no link between the two topics.
>
> After discussing this, Robert and I mocked up a new Professional Field 
> type, and a new property on Profession, "Part of professional field". We 
> started considering linking this field to Industry but realized that 
> Profressional Field was more broadly applicable.
>
> Examples:
> http://www.sandbox-freebase.com/view/en/physicist
> http://www.sandbox-freebase.com/view/en/broadcaster
> http://www.sandbox-freebase.com/view/en/priest
> http://www.sandbox-freebase.com/view/en/executioner
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>